Logic, Reasoning, Argumentation: Insights from the Wild

Frank Zenker

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/LLP.2017.029

Abstract


This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and goals. Deductively valid inferences remain a limiting case of such reasoning. In view of these insights, it may appear less surprising that allegedly “irrational” behavior can regularly be produced in experimental settings that expose subjects to standardized reasoning tasks.

Keywords


argumentation; fallacy; inference; reasoning

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aberdein, A., and I.J. Dove, (issue eds.), 2009, Foundations of Science (Mathematical argumentation) 14, 1–2: 1–152.

Alexy, R., 2003, “On balancing and subsumption. A structural comparison”, Ratio Juris 16, 4: 433–449. DOI: 10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x

Apel, K.-O., 1975, “The problem of philosophical fundamental-grounding in light of a transcendental pragmatic of language”, Man and World 8, 3: 239–275. DOI: 10.1007/BF01255646

Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe, 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Berlin/New York, NY: de Gruyter.

Betz, G., 2012, Debate dynamics: How controversy improves our beliefs, Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4599-5

Blair, J.A., 2011, “Informal logic and its early historical development” Studies in Logic 4, 1: 1–16.

Burgess, J.P., 2008, “Tarski’s tort”, pages 149–168 in J.P. Burgess, Mathematics, Models, and Modality: Selected Philosophical Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511487347.010

Burgess, J.P., 2011, “Kripke models”, pages 119–140 in Berger, A. (ed.), Saul Kripke, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511780622.006

Cohen, L.J., 1981, “Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 317–370. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X00009092

Conley, T.M., 1990, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Dow, J., 2015, Passions and Persuasion in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Oxford: Oxford University Pressm. DOI: 9780198716266.001.0001

Ehrensberger, J., and C. Zinn, 2011, “DIALOG. A system for dialogical logic”, manuscript. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/lieber/courses/se-courses/cs5500/sp11/lectures/Ehrensberger-Zinn-DiaLog.pdf (accessed 15 Nov 2012)

Evans, J.S.T.B., 2002, “Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm”, Psychological Bulletin 128, 6: 978–996. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.978

Evans, J.S.B.T., 2008, “Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition”, Annual Review of Psychology 59, 1: 255–278. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629

Frankish, K., and J.S.B.T. Evans, 2009, “The duality of mind: an historical perspective”, pages 1–29 in J.S.B.T. Evans and K. Frankish (eds.), In two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0001

Floridi, L., 2009, “Logical fallacies as informational shortcuts”, Synthese 167, 2: 317–325. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-008-9410-y

Gabbay, D.M., R.H. Johnson, H.J. Ohlbach, and J. Woods (eds.), 2002, Handbook of the Logic of Argument and Inference: The Turn towards the Practical, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gabbay, D.M., and J. Woods, 2002, “Formal approaches to practical reasoning: a survey”, pages 450–481 in [Gabbay et al., 2002]. DOI: 10.1016/S1570-2464(02)80013-1

Gigerenzer, G., and T. Sturm, 2012, “How (far) can rationality be naturalized?”, Synthese 187: 243–268. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-011-0030-6

Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and ABC Research Group, 1999, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, New York, NY/Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Godden, D.M., and F. Zenker, 2015, “Denying antecedents and affirming consequents: The state of the art”, Informal Logic 35, 1: 88–134. DOI: 10.22329/il.v35i1.4173

Godden, D.M., and F. Zenker, 2016, “A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency” Synthese (forthcoming). DOI: 10.1007/s11229-016-1299-2

Goodnight, G.T., 2006, “Complex cases and legitimation inference: Extending the Toulmin model to legitimation argument in controversy”, pages 39–48 in D. Hitchcock and B. Verheij (eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5

Groarke, L., 2016, “Informal logic”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/logic-informal/

Habermas, J., 1996, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy [W. Rehg (transl.)], Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hahn, U., and A.J.L. Harris, 2014, “What does it mean to be biased: Motivated reasoning and rationality”, Psychology of Learning and Motivation 61:41–102. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00002-2

Hahn, U., and J. Hornikx, 2016, “A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation”, Synthese 193, 6: 1833–1873. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-015-0815-0

Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford, 2006a, “A Bayesian approach to informal argument fallacies”, Synthese 152, 2: 207–236. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-005-5233-2

Hahn, U., and M. Oaksford, 2006b, “A normative theory of argument strength”, Informal Logic 26: 1–24. DOI: 10.22329/il.v26i1.428

Hamby, B., 2012, “Toulmin’s ‘Analytic Arguments’”; Informal Logic 32, 1: 116–131. DOI: 10.22329/il.v32i1.3099

Hansen, H.V., 2002, “The straw thing of fallacy theory: The standard definition of ‘fallacy’”, Argumentation 16: 133–155.

Harris, A.J.L., U. Hahn, J.K. Madsen, and A.S. Hsu, 2016, “The appeal to expert opinion: Quantitative support for a Bayesian network”, Approaches to Cognitive Science 40, 6: 1496–1533. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12276

Hamblin, C.L., 1970, Fallacies, London: Methuen.

Harrah, D., 1987, “Hintikka’s theory of questions”, paged 199–213 in R. Bogdan (ed.), Jaakko Hintikka, Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-3763-5_8

Hertwig, R., A. Ortmann, and G. Gigerenzer, 1997, “Deductive competence: A desert devoid of content and context”, Current Psychology of Cognition 16: 102–107.

Henrich, J., S. Heine, and A. Norenzayan, 2010, “The weirdest people in the world?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33, 2–3: 61–135. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Hintikka, J.J., and P.V. Spade, 2012, “History of logic”, Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/346217/history-of-logic (accessed 20 Nov 2012)

Hofstede, G., 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2 nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Jacot, J., E. Genot, and F. Zenker, 2016, “From reasonable preferences, via argumentation, to logic”, Journal of Applied Logic 18: 105–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.jal.2016.08.001

Johnson, R.H., 2006, “Making sense of informal logic”, Informal Logic 26, 3: 231–258. DOI: 10.22329/il.v26i3.453

Johnson, R.H., 2011, “Informal logic and deductivism”, Studies in Logic 4, 1: 17—37.

Kahneman, D., 2011, Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Korb, K., 2004, “Bayesian informal logic and fallacy”, Informal Logic, 23, 2: 41–70. DOI: 10.22329/il.v24i1.2132

Lakatos, I., 2015 (1976), Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316286425 and 10.1017/CBO9781139171472

Lorenz, K., and P. Lorenzen, 1978, Dialogische Logik Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Mercier, H., and D. Sperber, 2011, “Why do humans reason. Arguments for an argumentative theory”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34, 2: 57–111. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968

Meyer, M., 2010, “The Brussels school of rhetoric: From the new rhetoric to problematology”, Philosophy and Rhetoric 43, 4: 403–429.

Oaksford, M., and N. Chater, 1991, “Against logicist cognitive science”, Mind & Language 6: 1–38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.1991.tb00173.x

Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969 (1958), The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argument, [J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver (transl.)], Notre Dame, IN and London: University of Notre Dame Press. [French original: La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l’Argumentation, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958.

Pietroski, P., 2015, “Logical form”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/logical-form

Pollock, J.L., 1987, “Defeasible reasoning”, Cognitive Science 11, 4: 481–518. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4

Pollock, J.L., 1995, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Reiter, R., 1980, “A logic for default reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence 13, 1–2: 81–132. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

Schwartz, S.H., 1994, “Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?”, Journal of Social Issues 50, 4: 19-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x

Schwartz, S.H., 2012, “An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values”, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1. DOI: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116

Schwartz, S.H., and A. Bardi, 2001, “Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities perspective”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32, 3: 268–290.

Simon, H., 1948, Administrative Behaviour: A Study of the Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organisation, New York: Macmillan.

Simon, H.A., 1982, Models of Bounded Rationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Spade, P.V., and M. Yrjönsuuri, 2014, “Medieval theories of obligationes”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/obligationes

Spohn, W., 2002, “A brief comparison of Pollock’s defeasible reasoning and ranking functions”, Synthese 131, 1: 39–56. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015004212541

Spohn, W., 2012, The Laws of Belief: Ranking Functions and their Applications, Oxford: Oxford UP. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697502.001.0001

Stanovich, K.E., 1999, Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stenning, K., and M. van Lambalgen, 2008, Human Reasoning and Cognitive Science, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Strasser, C., and G.A. Antonelli, 2016, “Non-monotonic logic”, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/logic-nonmonotonic

Tindale, C., 2004, Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Toulmin, S.E., 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005

Toulmin, S.E., 1992, “Rhetoric, and reason: Redressing the balance”, pages 3–11 in F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willards (eds), Argumentation Illuminated: Proceedings of the Second ISSA Conference on Argumentation, SicSat: Amsterdam.

van Bentham, J., 2009, “One Logician’s Perspective on Argumentation”, Cogency 1, 2: 13–25.

van Eemeren, F.H., 2010, Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.

Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/aic.2

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst, 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511616389

van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and F.S. Henkemans, 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Mawhah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, and B. Meuffels, 2012, “Effectiveness through reasonableness: Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research”, Argumentation 26: 33–53. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9234-7

Verheij, B., 2009, “The Toulmin argument model in artificial intelligence. Or: how semi-formal, defeasible argumentation schemes creep into logic”, pages 219–238 in I. Rahwan and G. Simari (eds.), Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_11

Walton, D.N., 1991, “Hamblin on the standard treatment of fallacies”, Philosophy and Rhetoric 24, 4: 353–361.

Walton, D.N., 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Walton, D.N., 2010, “Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are”, Informal Logic 30, 2: 159–184. DOI: 10.22329/il.v30i2.2868

Walton, D.N., and R.H. Johnson, 2011, “Editors’ introduction. Special issue on Charles Hamblin”, Informal Logic 31, 4: i–iv.

Walton, D.N., and E. Krabbe, 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno, 2008, Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge University Press, New York. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034

Woods, J., R.H. Johnson, D.M. Gabbay, and H.J. Ohlbach, 2002, “Logic and the practical turn”, pages 1–39 in [Gabbay et al., 2002]. DOI: 10.1016/S1570-2464(02)80003-9

Zenker, F., 2011, “Experts and bias: When is the interest-based objection to an authority argument sound?”, Argumentation 25: 355–370. DOI: 10.1007/s10503-011-9226-7

Zenker, F., 2012, “The explanatory value of cognitive asymmetries in policy controversies”, pages 441–452 in J. Goodwin and R. Delaplante (eds.), Between Scientists and Citizens, Ames, IO: GPSA.

Zenker, F., 2013, “What do normative approaches to argumentation stand to gain from rhetorical insights?”, Philosophy & Rhetoric 46, 4: 415–436. DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0415

Zenker, F., and C. Dahlman, 2016, “Reliable debiasing techniques in legal contexts? Weak signals from a darker corner of the social science universe”, pages 173–196 in F. Paglieri, L. Bonelli, and S. Felletti (eds.), The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, London: College Publications.








Print ISSN: 1425-3305
Online ISSN: 2300-9802

Partnerzy platformy czasopism